Dt.11/8/12
I agree that the only remedy lies in challenging the judgements of Mr. Gandhi in high courts rather than entering into acrimonious debate among members.
JKGaur
I agree that the only remedy lies in challenging the judgements of Mr. Gandhi in high courts rather than entering into acrimonious debate among members.
JKGaur
> Date: Sat, 11 Aug 2012 09:09:59 +0530
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
> From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> I think the point Mr. Varkey makes is that the documents
> have "vanished" (so there is nothing left for citizens to
> be provided under RTI) - as distinguished from insiders
> (ie. non-citizens) who have retained their own private
> copies to be filed in Courts should the need arise.
>
> On 8/10/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Mr Varkey,
> >
> > Do you have documentary proof of what you are saying ?
> > If yes, please provide it.
> > Or it will be assumed to be a figment of your imagination.
> > I have the documents and there is nothing of the sort anywhere.
> > (unless of course I cannot read some of the "intentional" illegible
> > handwriting)
> >
> > RTIwanted
> >
> >
> > On 8/9/12, Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi sits to adjudicate on
> >> relative rights of various persons arising from a Central legislation.
> >>
> >> *The Central Information Commission is a creation of statute, and every
> >> action of Mr Gandhi must be only within the 4 corners of that statute.*
> >>
> >> When an individual Commissioner repeatedly disagrees over interpretation
> >> of
> >> the statute with each of his brother Commissioners (and officers of the
> >> Commission) and incorporates his disagreement publicly in his orders, it
> >> makes the functioining of the Commission impossible.
> >>
> >> Justice Sanghi on receiving several separate Writ Petitions against Mr
> >> Gandhi controversial orders has come to the correct conclusion and
> >> strictured Mr. Shailesh by name to highlight the seriousness of Mr.
> >> Gandhi's impropriety. While that case was being heard Mr. Chakravarti
> >> (JS-Law) was present in the court and had no answer to Courts' query why
> >> Chief Commissioner was not intervening to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> >> *Mr
> >> Chakravarti assured Court he would pass on Court's suggestion to withdraw
> >> cases from Mr. Gandhi.*
> >>
> >> This is the incident resulting in CIC withdrawing cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> >> Mr. Gandhi then approaches Chairperson UPA. The circular is made to
> >> disappear. Mr. Gandhi then victimises Mr. Chakravarti and other CIC
> >> officers making them approach High Court for stay.
> >>
> >> BJ Varkey, Advocate
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dt.08/08/12
> >>> It is no good talking in riddles and fill in the blanks.
> >>> It is my observation that some are biased against Sailesh Gandhi. We all
> >>> know he is not a legal lumanary nor he has claimed to be so. So If his
> >>> judgements/orders are deficient from that angle, there is no need to
> >>> atribute motives without proof and if one has proof there are remdies
> >>> available.
> >>> JKGaur
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> Date: eTue, 7 Aug 2012 23:00:46 +0800
> >>> From: djshah1944@yahoo.com
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
> >>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mr Gandhi is encouraging bad practices adopted by one Company for more
> >>> than 19 years in all Courts proceedings!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> Once I talked with him when I was in India. Over the phone he replied
> >>> that
> >>> this case is complete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From:* indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com>
> >>> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >>> *Sent:* Monday, 6 August 2012 5:13 AM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
> >>>
> >>> Dear All
> >>>
> >>> I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used
> >>> in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of
> >>> respect
> >>> towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and
> >>> decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is
> >>> used while addressing any Court of judicature. This is my observation
> >>> and
> >>> experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate.
> >>> Sorry if I have intervened in your discussion, but intent was only to
> >>> share my experience.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Prasad
> >>>
> >>> I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
> >>>
> >>> Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document.
> >>> Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it.
> >>>
> >>> It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases
> >>> like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often
> >>> than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the
> >>> Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good.
> >>>
> >>> Sarbajit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > Mr Sarbjit sir
> >>> > you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but
> >>> dont
> >>> > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity
> >>> > with
> >>> Mr.
> >>> > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also
> >>> other
> >>> > side which may call you as wrong.
> >>> > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which
> >>> > personal
> >>> > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote
> >>> judgment
> >>> > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he
> >>> > has
> >>> > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said
> >>> > to
> >>> > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible
> >>> for
> >>> > contempt of his own court.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > viadya
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Indrani Mukherjee
> >>> Advocate
> >>> 9811394136
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
> From: sroy.mb@gmail.com
> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
>
> I think the point Mr. Varkey makes is that the documents
> have "vanished" (so there is nothing left for citizens to
> be provided under RTI) - as distinguished from insiders
> (ie. non-citizens) who have retained their own private
> copies to be filed in Courts should the need arise.
>
> On 8/10/12, C K Jam <rtiwanted@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Mr Varkey,
> >
> > Do you have documentary proof of what you are saying ?
> > If yes, please provide it.
> > Or it will be assumed to be a figment of your imagination.
> > I have the documents and there is nothing of the sort anywhere.
> > (unless of course I cannot read some of the "intentional" illegible
> > handwriting)
> >
> > RTIwanted
> >
> >
> > On 8/9/12, Baby Varkey <babyjohn.varkey@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Sir,
> >>
> >> Central Information Commissioner Shailesh Gandhi sits to adjudicate on
> >> relative rights of various persons arising from a Central legislation.
> >>
> >> *The Central Information Commission is a creation of statute, and every
> >> action of Mr Gandhi must be only within the 4 corners of that statute.*
> >>
> >> When an individual Commissioner repeatedly disagrees over interpretation
> >> of
> >> the statute with each of his brother Commissioners (and officers of the
> >> Commission) and incorporates his disagreement publicly in his orders, it
> >> makes the functioining of the Commission impossible.
> >>
> >> Justice Sanghi on receiving several separate Writ Petitions against Mr
> >> Gandhi controversial orders has come to the correct conclusion and
> >> strictured Mr. Shailesh by name to highlight the seriousness of Mr.
> >> Gandhi's impropriety. While that case was being heard Mr. Chakravarti
> >> (JS-Law) was present in the court and had no answer to Courts' query why
> >> Chief Commissioner was not intervening to withdraw cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> >> *Mr
> >> Chakravarti assured Court he would pass on Court's suggestion to withdraw
> >> cases from Mr. Gandhi.*
> >>
> >> This is the incident resulting in CIC withdrawing cases from Mr. Gandhi.
> >> Mr. Gandhi then approaches Chairperson UPA. The circular is made to
> >> disappear. Mr. Gandhi then victimises Mr. Chakravarti and other CIC
> >> officers making them approach High Court for stay.
> >>
> >> BJ Varkey, Advocate
> >>
> >> On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 1:02 PM, Gaur J K <gaurjk@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Dt.08/08/12
> >>> It is no good talking in riddles and fill in the blanks.
> >>> It is my observation that some are biased against Sailesh Gandhi. We all
> >>> know he is not a legal lumanary nor he has claimed to be so. So If his
> >>> judgements/orders are deficient from that angle, there is no need to
> >>> atribute motives without proof and if one has proof there are remdies
> >>> available.
> >>> JKGaur
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> Date: eTue, 7 Aug 2012 23:00:46 +0800
> >>> From: djshah1944@yahoo.com
> >>>
> >>> Subject: Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
> >>> To: humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mr Gandhi is encouraging bad practices adopted by one Company for more
> >>> than 19 years in all Courts proceedings!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>> Once I talked with him when I was in India. Over the phone he replied
> >>> that
> >>> this case is complete!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> >>>
> >>> ------------------------------
> >>> *From:* indrani Mukherjee <juno.im@gmail.com>
> >>> *To:* humjanenge@googlegroups.com
> >>> *Sent:* Monday, 6 August 2012 5:13 AM
> >>> *Subject:* Re: [HumJanenge] Re: Mr. Shailesh Gandhi
> >>>
> >>> Dear All
> >>>
> >>> I am sorry to intervene amidst your conversation. The term "Ld." is used
> >>> in the Court orders or even while addressing arguments as a mark of
> >>> respect
> >>> towards even the opponent lawyer and in order to maintain the dignity and
> >>> decorum of the judicial functions. Similarly, the term "Hon'ble Court" is
> >>> used while addressing any Court of judicature. This is my observation
> >>> and
> >>> experience over the last decade of law practice as an advocate.
> >>> Sorry if I have intervened in your discussion, but intent was only to
> >>> share my experience.
> >>>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 6, 2012 at 3:29 PM, Sarbajit Roy <sroy.mb@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Dear Prasad
> >>>
> >>> I have no enmity with Mr Shailesh Gandhi.
> >>>
> >>> Insofar as the judgment is concerned, it s a public document.
> >>> Everyone is entitled to form his own opinion while read it.
> >>>
> >>> It is my experience, however, that when a judge uses phrases
> >>> like "Ld. counsel" or "Ld. Commissioner" in orders, more often
> >>> than not it is a code phrase for the next stage implying that the
> >>> Ld. gentleman knows too much for his own good.
> >>>
> >>> Sarbajit
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 8/6/12, prasad vaidya <prasadbvaidya@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>> > Mr Sarbjit sir
> >>> > you might have enmity with Mr. Shailesh Gandhi but
> >>> dont
> >>> > use this discussion forum for passing remarks for individual enmity
> >>> > with
> >>> Mr.
> >>> > Gandhi Yours views might be proper according to you but there is also
> >>> other
> >>> > side which may call you as wrong.
> >>> > please dont take it as my advice but take it as my opinion which
> >>> > personal
> >>> > I have gone through Judgment of Justice Sanghi I feel that he wrote
> >>> judgment
> >>> > which is not proper and the way he wrote about Mr. Gandhi in fact he
> >>> > has
> >>> > lowered down the dignity of human by passing remarks which can be said
> >>> > to
> >>> > scandolous in nature and therefore Justice Sanghi is otherwise eligible
> >>> for
> >>> > contempt of his own court.
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> > viadya
> >>> >
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> Regards
> >>>
> >>> Indrani Mukherjee
> >>> Advocate
> >>> 9811394136
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
No comments:
Post a Comment